You are misrepresenting the message either deliberately or through a misunderstanding of it.

Nowhere is it mentioned that the app was removes because it allowed avoiding police. It was removed because it violated the clauses on personal harm.

> we received credible information, from the Hong Kong Cybersecurity and Technology Crime Bureau, as well as from users in Hong Kong, that the app was being used maliciously to target individual officers for violence and to victimize individuals and property where no police are present. This use put the app in violation of Hong Kong law. Similarly, widespread abuse clearly violates our App Store guidelines barring personal harm.

When waze starts advertising that it will show you police-stops so you can drop by and beat up the police they would find themselves in a similar category.

That isn't what HKmap does, at all. I believe the people, like Zeynep Tufekci, who are reporting on the ground.

Even the most basic research about the app in question shows that it does not make it possible to “target individual officers”. Since you are suggesting that the app has been marketed for this use, could you produce a link?

I’d need to see this “credible information” before accepting Apple’s excuse. To me it seems much more likely that the app is being used to avoid the police and that Apple and the Hong Kong authorities are lying to cover their true intentions.

one can target individual officers using email. Are we now getting rid of that too?

NYPD complained to Waze about warning drivers of police checkpoints [0]. This quote from the article seems as compelling an argument as anything I've seen re: HKMap:

> The Waze website advertises the feature on its website, saying, "Get alerted before you approach police."

---

[0]: https://www.cnn.com/2019/02/07/us/nypd-tells-google-stop-waz...

I can't find that in the mobile version, at least. It does have an icon if a police officer among many others.

In any case, that for avoiding, not harming police officers so I don't think it's in the same category.

It’s a different category of action, but the app comes down to the same. It marks locations, right? Or I suppose moving points. Or am I misunderstanding something?

It specifically alerts you to police presence a few hundred yards or more before the location. It also flags speed cameras and more.

Couldn’t this easily be circumvented by indicating a generic POI.. if there’s no symbolism attached to it then the app is not a position of recommending anything other than a point of interest. As a sidebar, I’m surprised no one has thought of an ingress-style game as an organizing tool. For ex. A blue beacon equipped in a certain way is indicative of one thing while an green beacon another.

That seems like an intentionally uncharitable reading of the email. “the app was being used maliciously to target individual officers for violence and to victimize individuals and property where no police are present“ is the purported problem, the app having information about the location of police checkpoints (like waze) is specifically called “benign”.

It's probably a reference to how Waze alerts people to speed traps. It seems Google Maps has started doing this too.

(I find these alerts an annoying distraction and shut them off.)

I have spoken to Police officers in the Bay Area who have told me they love waze, and its the best way for police to get around most traffic. I honestly wouldn't be surprised if cops just post the "Speed Trap Warning" on waze just to get people to slow down even if cops aren't actually there.

We need a WazeWaze which show the false police warnings so it's safe to drive over the speed limit. But soon the cops will notice it so it could lead to WazeWazeWaze and then...